Your board's interpreter seems to be the only one who was given this change.

If, the ball in flight has the same relationship to frontcourt and backcourt, or inbounds or out of bounds, as when it last touched a person or the floor [#9 Basketball Rules Fundamentals], and B-3 touched the ball in the frontcourt and it has not hit the floor in the backcourt before A-1 touches it in the backcourt, then A-1 has caused it to gain backcourt status. I understand that it seems to be a bad ruling with respect to what has happened. But, by looking at the Rules Fundamentals, it is the correct one.

The problem is, "causing the ball to gain backcourt status" is not the violation. The violation is for having players on the team in control be the last to touch before it gained BC status and the first to touch after it gained BC status. The fundamental isn't applicable to this situation.

The situation that illustrates the absurdity of the ruling:
A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1 defending, standing completely in the FC, reaches and slaps the ball off of A1's leg.

It is a matter of semantics, snaqs. No change in team control occurred with Bs touch. It is absurd that a bounce in the BC makes the difference in there being a violation or no violation. And B's touch did not result in the ball gaining BC status. A's touch while standing in the BC did. A similar type of play is when during a 10 second count, A1 passes the ball to the FC, but before it is touched in the FC, the 10 seconds are reached and a violation occurs. Both plays can be determined under the rule fundamental.

And with the string of recent posts....
 

....this thread has officially been hijacked.

Do you think my play is a violation? The fact is, in both plays, the last to touch "before" the ball gained BC status was B. For a violation, A has to be the last to touch before it gained BC status. Causing it to gain BC status is not where the violation is.

When A touched it, it gained BC status. The end result would be the same as if B1 touched it in the FC, then A4 touched it, then it hit the floor in BC where A1 was the first to touch it. In the initial play, the team never lost team control and A violated by catching the ball in the air in BC before the ball gained BC status. B's touch is not germane to the case play because the ball did not hit the floor in BC. And there was no change in team control.

So, what happens next? A1 has player control and a 10 second count is still continuing. Team control has not changed. And they have not caused the ball to gain FC status. I don't like the ruling in the play being discussed, but I cannot set the rule aside because I do not like it.

No, he didn't violate, because team A was not the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status. B1 was. That's the rule. In your second scenario, A4 was the last to touch it before it gained BC status; making it a violation.

In the interp play, B1's touch is the last event prior to the ball gaining BC status.

What happens next? By rule, you have a new 10 second count. The ball has not continuously been in the backcourt, since B1's touch gives it FC status. Since team control never ends, the BC count will start as soon as the ball regains BC status. This play is fundamentally identical to the interp.

Team A doesn't have to cause the ball to gain FC status, that's not part of the rule any more than causing it to gain BC status is part of it.

We can't add "cause" to the rule in order to make the interp correct.

2007-08 NFHS Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Argue with this guy. :D

We've been arguing with him since the interp came out. :D The interp specifically mentions "caused the ball to have backcourt status," which is definitively not in the rule. Again, this interp leads one to have to call a violation in the play I presented earlier; which is absurd.

It also does not fit the rule.

"A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team
control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by
the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

They're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of what causes the ball to have BC status. That seems OK to me.

I even think that the "simultaneity" objection lacks merit: if event A causes event B, then A has to happen before B. When a player's touch causes the ball to have BC status, the player was the last to touch before the ball "went" to the BC.

[Hint: I'm playing devil's advocate here. Can you locate the fallacy?]

"Cause" isn't my biggest problem; but it's not in the rule.

The fallacy in your point? Use of the word "cause" where it's not warranted. A ball gains backcourt status at a precise moment in time. A separate event cannot happen both before and after that moment.

So, let me ask you, would you call a violation on the play I submitted?

You mean this play:
"A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1 defending, standing completely in the FC, reaches and slaps the ball off of A1's leg."

No, I wouldn't. I don't think A1 touched it before it gained BC status.

But I'm not sure your reasoning stands up: if we're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of causation, then the interp implies two events -- cause and effect -- which cannot be simultaneous.

True, 9-9-1 doesn't employ the word "cause," but what else could "went to the backcourt" mean?

[Still advocating...]